Some people dismiss scientific claims when these conflict with their instinctive views or their religious beliefs. But while instincts can be important and faith can be valuable, when it comes to reliability, what makes ‘scientific thinking’ distinctly dependable is that it is characterised by its approach to reason and evidence. In short, for any claim to be scientific, it must stand up to the on-going tests of rational analysis and evidential examination. To make any claim that fails or ignores such critical tests is to make an arbitrary assertion, which offers nothing to justify its believability.
It is important to remember that what validates a claim as scientific is not that some particular person – formally designated a scientist or not – has made that claim. What is crucial is the manner in which that claim has been tested and found to be provisionally sound. It does not have to be declared absolutely, eternally correct. Indeed, any such declaration would cast doubt on the claim being scientific at all. What we are looking for in the testing process is genuine attempts to demonstrate what the claim entails would happen does happen under conditions of objective observation, and that systematic searches for counter-examples or alternative explanations have not produced a case to undermine its credibility.
In medical research, forensic investigation, or electrical engineering, we can see how claims that are put forward from different quarters are subject to vigorous tests, and only upheld if confirmatory findings are obtained and replicable, while no contrary evidence is discovered. And the acceptance of such claims is open to revisions should further challenges and explorations lead us to reconsider what is being put forward.
By contrast, an arbitrary stance reveals itself when one insists on the correctness of a claim regardless of the evidence. This can be seen with people who would reject any questioning of their assertions even though they have no tangible basis for making them. For example, anti-vaxxers dismiss all vaccinations as unacceptably dangerous irrespective of extensive studies of different types of vaccine; climate change deniers maintain whatever substantial climate changes are detected have nothing to do with human activities in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary; cult followers would not rethink any of their leaders’ claims even when they are blatantly false according to every objective assessment; and xenophobic conspiracy theorists attribute blame to foreigners for things with which there are no detectable causal links.
Of course, makers of arbitrary claims can resort to the old ‘science hasn’t got all the answers’ proclamation. But it has no relevance. Science, or more accurately, the totality of scientifically validated claims at any given time, does not have all the answers to every conceivable question. Neither has any other source of information – be they preachers, self-styled clairvoyants, astrologers, or the rumour mill. The difference is that those who work on scientific claims know the limits of the available evidence and are prepared to suspend their judgement, or revise their views, in light of what actual investigation and experiment are able to find.
So long as we remember that ‘pseudo-science’ – the pretence that absolute knowledge is attained in the name of science when it rests on anything but scientific evaluation – is not science, we can safely say that we should let claims be put on a scale that has scientific at one end and arbitrary at the other, and where any individual claim sits would indicate to us what credence we should attach to it.
Thursday, 16 July 2020
Wednesday, 1 July 2020
Skin-Tone Negativity Syndrome (STNS)
There are people who reacts to others’ skin tone, without any coherent justification, with one or more of the following tendencies:
• Fear
• Unease
• Distrust
• Hatred
• Anger
• Rudeness
• Condescension
• Stereotyping
Now we can argue about the extent to which each of these tendencies may qualify as racist, and perhaps different words should be used to differentiate mild/occasional manifestations from intense/frequent ones, but no one would dispute that such these tendencies, prompted purely by skin tone negativity, ought to be corrected. Anyone at the receiving end of any of these tendencies would understandably feel wronged and aggrieved. Why should anyone have to put up with being perceived and/or treated in an unfavourable manner just because of one’s skin tone, irrespective of one’s real character, abilities, and track record in life?
It is notable that many people who exhibit the Skin Tone Negativity Syndrome (STNS) and seek to defend it publicly, seek to focus debates on the meaning of words – should a particular act be called ‘racist’? should an organisation be classified as ‘institutionally racist’? was an expression merely ‘politically incorrect’? And since they prefer to use their own ‘definitions’ of terms which bear little resemblance to those of their critics, the debates can go on and on without any resolution in sight.
By contrast, if the focus is kept on what STNS does in specific cases, on what tendency is manifesting, and what impact it is having on affected people’s lives, then there is no hiding from public scrutiny. Defenders of STNS can, for example, keep spouting the mantra that the way they like to talk about ethnic minorities is not ‘racist’, but just ‘plain speaking’. But if the insulting and injurious behaviour they would not accept for themselves is discovered to have been perpetrated on others, then the case for intervention is made.
The need for intervention often brings up another question in connection with STNS – namely, what is THE cause of it? However, to understand STNS is to see that it does not have a single definitive cause. Some people become susceptible to xenophobic manipulation because they have suffered through socio-economic marginalisation. But deprivation is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for STNS. Some people inherit the casual prejudices from their parents and neighbours. Some people come from privileged families, and their wealth-based status leads them to succumb to a delusionary ‘superiority’ complex that encourages them to look down on others who are visibly different from them. Some may have had personal experiences that diminish their self-esteem to such a level that hating and intimidating others who could be branded as ‘alien’ might be their way of boosting their fragile ego.
Instead of looking for a one definitive cause, we should trace its manifestations to the different conditions that give rise to them, and formulate preventative and corrective measures as appropriate. These would include civic education to nurture moral awareness; public scrutiny and curtailment of egregious communication that is designed to deceive, incite, or hurt people; exposure and removal of symbolism that serves to normalise, or even glorify, wrongful deeds; child protection that ensures families are not left to abuse or corrupt their young; support for people whose personal circumstances render them vulnerable to the embrace of blind suspicion and arbitrary hate; and mechanisms for reporting incidents to be investigated at all levels of society for early intervention to commence whenever necessary.
STNS is harmful because it generates negative impact on people on the wholly arbitrary basis of their skin tone. We should not let those who revel in its spread deflect us with rhetorical sleight-of-hand. Wherever it is detected, it must counteracted with swift and effective action.
• Fear
• Unease
• Distrust
• Hatred
• Anger
• Rudeness
• Condescension
• Stereotyping
Now we can argue about the extent to which each of these tendencies may qualify as racist, and perhaps different words should be used to differentiate mild/occasional manifestations from intense/frequent ones, but no one would dispute that such these tendencies, prompted purely by skin tone negativity, ought to be corrected. Anyone at the receiving end of any of these tendencies would understandably feel wronged and aggrieved. Why should anyone have to put up with being perceived and/or treated in an unfavourable manner just because of one’s skin tone, irrespective of one’s real character, abilities, and track record in life?
It is notable that many people who exhibit the Skin Tone Negativity Syndrome (STNS) and seek to defend it publicly, seek to focus debates on the meaning of words – should a particular act be called ‘racist’? should an organisation be classified as ‘institutionally racist’? was an expression merely ‘politically incorrect’? And since they prefer to use their own ‘definitions’ of terms which bear little resemblance to those of their critics, the debates can go on and on without any resolution in sight.
By contrast, if the focus is kept on what STNS does in specific cases, on what tendency is manifesting, and what impact it is having on affected people’s lives, then there is no hiding from public scrutiny. Defenders of STNS can, for example, keep spouting the mantra that the way they like to talk about ethnic minorities is not ‘racist’, but just ‘plain speaking’. But if the insulting and injurious behaviour they would not accept for themselves is discovered to have been perpetrated on others, then the case for intervention is made.
The need for intervention often brings up another question in connection with STNS – namely, what is THE cause of it? However, to understand STNS is to see that it does not have a single definitive cause. Some people become susceptible to xenophobic manipulation because they have suffered through socio-economic marginalisation. But deprivation is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for STNS. Some people inherit the casual prejudices from their parents and neighbours. Some people come from privileged families, and their wealth-based status leads them to succumb to a delusionary ‘superiority’ complex that encourages them to look down on others who are visibly different from them. Some may have had personal experiences that diminish their self-esteem to such a level that hating and intimidating others who could be branded as ‘alien’ might be their way of boosting their fragile ego.
Instead of looking for a one definitive cause, we should trace its manifestations to the different conditions that give rise to them, and formulate preventative and corrective measures as appropriate. These would include civic education to nurture moral awareness; public scrutiny and curtailment of egregious communication that is designed to deceive, incite, or hurt people; exposure and removal of symbolism that serves to normalise, or even glorify, wrongful deeds; child protection that ensures families are not left to abuse or corrupt their young; support for people whose personal circumstances render them vulnerable to the embrace of blind suspicion and arbitrary hate; and mechanisms for reporting incidents to be investigated at all levels of society for early intervention to commence whenever necessary.
STNS is harmful because it generates negative impact on people on the wholly arbitrary basis of their skin tone. We should not let those who revel in its spread deflect us with rhetorical sleight-of-hand. Wherever it is detected, it must counteracted with swift and effective action.
Tuesday, 16 June 2020
Left Without Words
What is the difference between ‘Left’ and ‘Right’? The terms arose from the seating arrangement in the National Assembly convened in the wake of the 1789 French Revolution. Those who wanted to press for greater liberty, equality, and fraternity, and bring in policies that would secure the necessary changes sat to the left of the assembly’s president. Those who sought to defend the position of the monarch, aristocratic privileges, and the hierarchical structures of the status quo sat to his right.
Two centuries on, Left is still in essence the label for those who challenge oppression, inequalities, and discriminatory exclusion, while Right embodies the mindset of those who desire the preservation of concentrated power, rigid divisions, and unquestionable customs.
On the surface, the Left ought to be the natural rallying point for everyone who suffers from the iniquities perpetuated by champions of the Right, and should readily appeal to the unfairly disadvantaged and the critics of prejudice and exploitation. But for decades, the Left appears to have forgotten that they need to remind people what they stand for, and that to do so effectively requires the deployment of key words.
One of the most critical errors of the Left is to let go of any term which has been hijacked by the Right. Just consider the following:
• Community: the Right obsesses about communities that are controlled by tight hierarchies and deferential to the powerful, but the Left should support the development of positive community life by enabling people to act cooperatively and deliberatively as democratic citizens.
• Customs: there are customs that are positive in uniting people and celebrating positive memories, but there are also customs that are outmoded and harmful. The Right wants to preserve prejudices and discrimination as integral parts of selected customs, but they should be exposed, while valuable customs and historical symbols ought to be embraced by the Left.
• Faith: There is no single spokesperson for God and there is no religious sect that can condemn all other faiths and beliefs as wrong. The Right has no compunction in claiming it is the standard bearer of ‘true faith’ when that is simply whatever they pick to suit their rhetoric. The Left welcomes faith that promotes love and harmony, but opposes false prophets who preach hatred and spread lies.
• Family: why let the Right pretend only they care about family values? They actually want to retain patriarchal family structures and attack all other forms of loving family relations as unacceptable. The Left should promote real family values.
• Freedom: the Right’s ‘freedom’ is about the freedom of the powerful to oppress others, the freedom to act irresponsibly, and the freedom to deceive and intimidate. The Left’s role is to defend everyone’s freedom from the oppressive, irresponsible, and unjust acts of others.
• Law and Order: the Right wants to be associated with ‘law and order’ but they are quite ready to undermine legal due process or incite riots if that would help them win/keep power. The Left wants law and order for all irrespective of their connections or bank balance.
• Patriotism: the Right is ever ready to dress up their xenophobia and aggressive stance against other countries as patriotism, but true patriotism is about doing what is in the real best interest of one’s country, and that is at the heart of the Left’s dedication to enhance the wellbeing of the country’s people.
• Prosperity: the Left has allowed the Right to caricature it as wanting fairer shares of a shrinking pie. In reality, the Right wants the privileged few to have more and more at everyone else’s expense, while the Left wants prosperity for all with renewable resources helping to enrich everyone’s life-chances.
• Security: the Right sees security as protection for themselves whenever they take ownership of property or control of government, but they are not concerned about the lack of security for the poor and vulnerable, or about public institutions if they were not in power. The Left stands for security, in all forms, for all citizens and all institutions.
If the Left keeps dissociating itself from any word that the Right has tried to claim as its own, it will end up with nothing to signify what it stands for. It’s time for the Left to rebuild its vocabulary.
Two centuries on, Left is still in essence the label for those who challenge oppression, inequalities, and discriminatory exclusion, while Right embodies the mindset of those who desire the preservation of concentrated power, rigid divisions, and unquestionable customs.
On the surface, the Left ought to be the natural rallying point for everyone who suffers from the iniquities perpetuated by champions of the Right, and should readily appeal to the unfairly disadvantaged and the critics of prejudice and exploitation. But for decades, the Left appears to have forgotten that they need to remind people what they stand for, and that to do so effectively requires the deployment of key words.
One of the most critical errors of the Left is to let go of any term which has been hijacked by the Right. Just consider the following:
• Community: the Right obsesses about communities that are controlled by tight hierarchies and deferential to the powerful, but the Left should support the development of positive community life by enabling people to act cooperatively and deliberatively as democratic citizens.
• Customs: there are customs that are positive in uniting people and celebrating positive memories, but there are also customs that are outmoded and harmful. The Right wants to preserve prejudices and discrimination as integral parts of selected customs, but they should be exposed, while valuable customs and historical symbols ought to be embraced by the Left.
• Faith: There is no single spokesperson for God and there is no religious sect that can condemn all other faiths and beliefs as wrong. The Right has no compunction in claiming it is the standard bearer of ‘true faith’ when that is simply whatever they pick to suit their rhetoric. The Left welcomes faith that promotes love and harmony, but opposes false prophets who preach hatred and spread lies.
• Family: why let the Right pretend only they care about family values? They actually want to retain patriarchal family structures and attack all other forms of loving family relations as unacceptable. The Left should promote real family values.
• Freedom: the Right’s ‘freedom’ is about the freedom of the powerful to oppress others, the freedom to act irresponsibly, and the freedom to deceive and intimidate. The Left’s role is to defend everyone’s freedom from the oppressive, irresponsible, and unjust acts of others.
• Law and Order: the Right wants to be associated with ‘law and order’ but they are quite ready to undermine legal due process or incite riots if that would help them win/keep power. The Left wants law and order for all irrespective of their connections or bank balance.
• Patriotism: the Right is ever ready to dress up their xenophobia and aggressive stance against other countries as patriotism, but true patriotism is about doing what is in the real best interest of one’s country, and that is at the heart of the Left’s dedication to enhance the wellbeing of the country’s people.
• Prosperity: the Left has allowed the Right to caricature it as wanting fairer shares of a shrinking pie. In reality, the Right wants the privileged few to have more and more at everyone else’s expense, while the Left wants prosperity for all with renewable resources helping to enrich everyone’s life-chances.
• Security: the Right sees security as protection for themselves whenever they take ownership of property or control of government, but they are not concerned about the lack of security for the poor and vulnerable, or about public institutions if they were not in power. The Left stands for security, in all forms, for all citizens and all institutions.
If the Left keeps dissociating itself from any word that the Right has tried to claim as its own, it will end up with nothing to signify what it stands for. It’s time for the Left to rebuild its vocabulary.
Monday, 1 June 2020
Priority One: Political Power
People who routinely lament “nothing ever changes”, clearly have their eyes shut to both the many good and disastrous changes that happen around us. A glance at history tells us that significant improvements to health provision, the environment, business reliability, welfare support, dispute resolution, etc. can be achieved through the appropriate public policies. Equally, every indicator of quality of life can dip, or even plummet, when callous and exploitative measures are implemented by undesirable regimes.
Changes are real. They are substantial. They are not random. And the most important means for controlling them is political power.
We should not neglect campaigning for causes, joining groups to raise shared concerns, donating to charities, or protesting against iniquitous acts. But they are no substitute for political power. If we do all the other things, and yet keep away from electoral politics, the result is that the unscrupulous will step in, take power, and use it to advance their self-serving agendas at everyone else’s expense.
It may be comforting for some that retreating from political contests to concentrate on ‘good deeds’ means they can feel positive about their role in life. In reality, nothing can alter lives more than the exercise of political power. To allow charlatans to take political office is to open the door for them to introduce laws, policies, arrangements to impoverish more people, put more lives at risk, damage the environment irreparably, pervert the course of justice, extend corrupt practices, and spread distrust and hatred.
Our first priority as citizens must be to help secure political power for those most likely to help society with that power and least likely to abuse that power against the public interest. That means we have to assess every political contest as it is, and not pretend we are living in an alternative idealised world where a ‘perfect’ candidate will appear and win with our unwavering support.
Each contest presents us with critical choices. Increasingly these come down to a run-off between an arch-manipulator (charismatic to their followers, ever ready to lie and distort, shamelessly corrupt, indifferent to the suffering they cause others), and someone willing to fight for a better alternative. That alternative may not satisfy everyone, deliver all desirable changes as fast as possible, or meet the expectations of all sections of society. But when it is either that challenger with the alternative vision or the arch-manipulator, it must be obvious that anything short of backing for the former would lead to victory for the latter and the most dire consequences would ensue.
Nonetheless, some people are quite content to stand back and let charlatans win because they insist they will not vote for anyone except for the ‘perfect candidate’ in their eyes (even if that person has no chance of winning); or in some cases, they believe that letting swindlers take power will stir public anger and hasten the day when the revolution comes.
Such delusions must be cast aside. The only ‘revolution’ that comes is the dismantling of public services, subversion of law and order, undermining of human rights, and escalation of preventable suffering. If life is to get better, if the ruthless is not to keep hold of the power to rule over us, we must accept that, above all else, we need to rally behind the candidate who will offer a more decent alternative, AND who is best placed to defeat the charlatan who endangers the common good.
We have seen in the US and the UK what happens when too many people refuse to follow this course. Let’s not make that mistake again.
Changes are real. They are substantial. They are not random. And the most important means for controlling them is political power.
We should not neglect campaigning for causes, joining groups to raise shared concerns, donating to charities, or protesting against iniquitous acts. But they are no substitute for political power. If we do all the other things, and yet keep away from electoral politics, the result is that the unscrupulous will step in, take power, and use it to advance their self-serving agendas at everyone else’s expense.
It may be comforting for some that retreating from political contests to concentrate on ‘good deeds’ means they can feel positive about their role in life. In reality, nothing can alter lives more than the exercise of political power. To allow charlatans to take political office is to open the door for them to introduce laws, policies, arrangements to impoverish more people, put more lives at risk, damage the environment irreparably, pervert the course of justice, extend corrupt practices, and spread distrust and hatred.
Our first priority as citizens must be to help secure political power for those most likely to help society with that power and least likely to abuse that power against the public interest. That means we have to assess every political contest as it is, and not pretend we are living in an alternative idealised world where a ‘perfect’ candidate will appear and win with our unwavering support.
Each contest presents us with critical choices. Increasingly these come down to a run-off between an arch-manipulator (charismatic to their followers, ever ready to lie and distort, shamelessly corrupt, indifferent to the suffering they cause others), and someone willing to fight for a better alternative. That alternative may not satisfy everyone, deliver all desirable changes as fast as possible, or meet the expectations of all sections of society. But when it is either that challenger with the alternative vision or the arch-manipulator, it must be obvious that anything short of backing for the former would lead to victory for the latter and the most dire consequences would ensue.
Nonetheless, some people are quite content to stand back and let charlatans win because they insist they will not vote for anyone except for the ‘perfect candidate’ in their eyes (even if that person has no chance of winning); or in some cases, they believe that letting swindlers take power will stir public anger and hasten the day when the revolution comes.
Such delusions must be cast aside. The only ‘revolution’ that comes is the dismantling of public services, subversion of law and order, undermining of human rights, and escalation of preventable suffering. If life is to get better, if the ruthless is not to keep hold of the power to rule over us, we must accept that, above all else, we need to rally behind the candidate who will offer a more decent alternative, AND who is best placed to defeat the charlatan who endangers the common good.
We have seen in the US and the UK what happens when too many people refuse to follow this course. Let’s not make that mistake again.
Thursday, 21 May 2020
The General Theory of Responsibility (part 3)
The final set of issues covered by the general theory of responsibility relate to the influence we have over the decisions made by others that can affect how we live. Just as we would not want to have no influence over others’ choice of action when that can impact on us, we should not leave others with no influence over our choice of action that can impact on them.
Citizen Participation: our decision-making involving each other
People’s responsibility can be diminished to the extent their influence over a course of action is reduced. Beyond matters of which individuals are fully in control themselves, there are many activities in society that involve others by design, accident, or unwelcome interference. It is not uncommon that out of impatience, excessive certitude, or low regard for the perspectives of others, some people make decisions without those affected ever getting a chance to have a say about them. This can happen in the context of any social group, from a neighbourhood, workplace, to a region, a country, or the world. If we are to involve one another in the decisions we make, we need to have citizen participation – secured through processes of informed and deliberative engagement. It is why over the course of history, democratic and participatory practices have been found to limit irresponsible behaviour much more than dictatorships or anarchic free-for-all.
The Problem of Imposition
To protect people’s capacity for responsible behaviour, we need to deal with the problem of imposition, which arises when individuals’ options for what to do are cut out by extraneous factors. Imposition can range from physical forces that cause involuntary movement and thus nullify responsibility completely; to interference such as duress that presents immoral options as alternatives to more painful outcome, which may not take away a person’s responsibility (even though in cases where the threatened pain is severe, the person’s actions may be forgiven). It may also come in the form of internal mental pressure, which can remove responsibility if it is truly irresistible in the sense that a person makes demonstrable yet unsuccessful efforts in rejecting it, but not if the person actually embraces the obsession/addiction as an integral part of their identity. Attempts to tackle the problem of imposition must also navigate the arguments deployed by those such as philosophical determinists who maintain that there is no such thing as responsibility since everyone’s behaviour is ultimately determined by a chain of causes that go back before a person’s birth; sincere or devious advocates who insist the weakness of will exhibited in any blameworthy action is sufficient to deny responsibility for it; and well-off reactionaries who want to impose impoverished life choices on others and hold that the poor and powerless must take full responsibility for how they live.
Volitional Thoughtfulness
We need to cultivate volitional thoughtfulness in people so that they can reflect on the choices they make, learn to have greater control over their thoughts and desires, and engage more effectively others who may be affected by their decisions as they would want to be engaged by others who make decisions that affect them. There should be better understanding of subsidiarity – regarding how decisions are best taken at the most local level except for when it has to be passed to an authority with wider jurisdiction and greater capacity because otherwise no decision can be effectively made or carried out. People should also learn about when decisions need to be delegated to others to take on the role of formulating a collective response, and how they can maintain real influence over their decisions.
Power Balance as a Socio-Political Goal
Responsibility is sustained by mutual consideration, and we need to reduce power inequalities in society if it is to flourish. We must promote power balance across communities by means of: [a] the development of more effective participatory decision-making, with better utilisation of tried and tested participatory approaches, so as to raise people’s understanding of and influence over decisions that can affect how they live, and improve the chances of all decision-makers going with the most responsible options; [b] the securing of greater civic parity, so that wealth and status gaps are reduced, no one is left vulnerable by deficient public safety net, and the influence of money over policies and practices is greatly curtailed; and [c] the strengthening of public accountability, so that where we have to entrust decisions to a number of elected or appointed figures (for reasons of efficiency, emergency, or simple feasibility), we can be confident that they will have to seek our views and can be held accountable by us for the decisions they take.
--
For ‘The General Theory of Responsibility (part 1), go to: https://henry-tam.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-general-theory-of-responsibility.html
For ‘The General Theory of Responsibility (part 2), go to: https://henry-tam.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-general-theory-of-responsibility_11.html
For an overview of the theory and a guide to further reading, go to: https://hbtam.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-general-theory-of-responsibility.html
Citizen Participation: our decision-making involving each other
People’s responsibility can be diminished to the extent their influence over a course of action is reduced. Beyond matters of which individuals are fully in control themselves, there are many activities in society that involve others by design, accident, or unwelcome interference. It is not uncommon that out of impatience, excessive certitude, or low regard for the perspectives of others, some people make decisions without those affected ever getting a chance to have a say about them. This can happen in the context of any social group, from a neighbourhood, workplace, to a region, a country, or the world. If we are to involve one another in the decisions we make, we need to have citizen participation – secured through processes of informed and deliberative engagement. It is why over the course of history, democratic and participatory practices have been found to limit irresponsible behaviour much more than dictatorships or anarchic free-for-all.
The Problem of Imposition
To protect people’s capacity for responsible behaviour, we need to deal with the problem of imposition, which arises when individuals’ options for what to do are cut out by extraneous factors. Imposition can range from physical forces that cause involuntary movement and thus nullify responsibility completely; to interference such as duress that presents immoral options as alternatives to more painful outcome, which may not take away a person’s responsibility (even though in cases where the threatened pain is severe, the person’s actions may be forgiven). It may also come in the form of internal mental pressure, which can remove responsibility if it is truly irresistible in the sense that a person makes demonstrable yet unsuccessful efforts in rejecting it, but not if the person actually embraces the obsession/addiction as an integral part of their identity. Attempts to tackle the problem of imposition must also navigate the arguments deployed by those such as philosophical determinists who maintain that there is no such thing as responsibility since everyone’s behaviour is ultimately determined by a chain of causes that go back before a person’s birth; sincere or devious advocates who insist the weakness of will exhibited in any blameworthy action is sufficient to deny responsibility for it; and well-off reactionaries who want to impose impoverished life choices on others and hold that the poor and powerless must take full responsibility for how they live.
Volitional Thoughtfulness
We need to cultivate volitional thoughtfulness in people so that they can reflect on the choices they make, learn to have greater control over their thoughts and desires, and engage more effectively others who may be affected by their decisions as they would want to be engaged by others who make decisions that affect them. There should be better understanding of subsidiarity – regarding how decisions are best taken at the most local level except for when it has to be passed to an authority with wider jurisdiction and greater capacity because otherwise no decision can be effectively made or carried out. People should also learn about when decisions need to be delegated to others to take on the role of formulating a collective response, and how they can maintain real influence over their decisions.
Power Balance as a Socio-Political Goal
Responsibility is sustained by mutual consideration, and we need to reduce power inequalities in society if it is to flourish. We must promote power balance across communities by means of: [a] the development of more effective participatory decision-making, with better utilisation of tried and tested participatory approaches, so as to raise people’s understanding of and influence over decisions that can affect how they live, and improve the chances of all decision-makers going with the most responsible options; [b] the securing of greater civic parity, so that wealth and status gaps are reduced, no one is left vulnerable by deficient public safety net, and the influence of money over policies and practices is greatly curtailed; and [c] the strengthening of public accountability, so that where we have to entrust decisions to a number of elected or appointed figures (for reasons of efficiency, emergency, or simple feasibility), we can be confident that they will have to seek our views and can be held accountable by us for the decisions they take.
--
For ‘The General Theory of Responsibility (part 1), go to: https://henry-tam.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-general-theory-of-responsibility.html
For ‘The General Theory of Responsibility (part 2), go to: https://henry-tam.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-general-theory-of-responsibility_11.html
For an overview of the theory and a guide to further reading, go to: https://hbtam.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-general-theory-of-responsibility.html
Monday, 11 May 2020
The General Theory of Responsibility (part 2)
Let us turn now to the second set of issues that are central to the general theory of responsibility. We have looked at the importance of our concern for each other and what we accordingly need to do. It will be seen that in order to act appropriately on our concern for each other, we also need to be aware what will help or hinder others in practice. To differentiate responsibly between what merits belief or not, we need to be prepared to take account of the reasons and evidence put forward by others, as we would want them to be prepared to take account of the reasons and evidence put forward by us.
Cooperative Enquiry: our reasoning with each other
Human knowledge has been advanced through cooperative enquiry, exemplified by the empirical exchange and examination of information in scientific research, legal due process, and impartial public inquiry. It would clearly be self-defeating if all sides were to throw in groundless declarations or incoherent assertions. Cooperative enquiry requires logical and testable information to be brought together and scrutinised openly to see what stands up best at any given time and thus warrants assent. To act responsibly, we need to ascertain the veracity of conflicting claims, which involves being ready to give defensible reasons, listen and respond, and revise views in the light of verifiable evidence; and this approach requires all sides to engage in a mutually receptive mode of reasoning.
The Problem of Ignorance
Misunderstanding, confusion, deception, lack of information can mean that what people do may have very different effects from what they anticipate. Although it is often said that ignorance is no defence, that is only relevant where there is a clear obligation for people to find out about the implications of certain behaviour before they engage in it (for example, people cannot shrug off responsibility by deliberately not checking if certain activities would break the law when they know they should check; nor can responsibility for any harm resulting from drunken behaviour be bypassed when it is common knowledge how excessive alcohol consumption can lead to injurious actions). In all other situations where ignorance of the relevant facts cannot be avoided or foreseen, responsibility would be nullified. However, efforts to improve our knowledge and understanding will encounter obstacles from, for example, philosophical sceptics/relativists who deny there is any basis for distinguishing truth from falsehood; those who are overwhelmed by irrationality as a result of psychological or physiological damages; or fanatic followers of cults or dogmas who recoil from objective examination of their beliefs.
Cognitive Thoughtfulness
Ignorance can be reduced through the cultivation of cognitive thoughtfulness on two levels. For people who are open to learning, we should ensure education for all ages enhance their understanding of and skills in assessing rival claims and settling disagreement. They should be familiarised with how assertions, from ones about everyday occurrence to those putting forward complex theories, are subject to exchange of observation, evidence and arguments so that they can be accepted provisionally, revised or rejected. Supplementing direct enquiry would be indirect evaluation of claims made by a given authority or expert, based on the latter’s track record in complying with cooperative enquiry. For those whose minds seem closed to cooperative enquiry, we should connect their ‘unquestionable’ assumptions to experiences of events that may lead them to think again. By enabling them to live through what their dogmas or prejudices insist could not possibly happen, they could be brought round to re-examining what they think they ‘know’. Another effective technique is to link their deepest interests to trying out what would in practice achieve them – for example, discovering how science-based medication rather than superstitious rituals help their loved ones recover from serious sickness.
Objectivity as a Socio-Political Goal
Aside from minimising ignorance amongst individuals, there are many societal obstacles to cooperative enquiry that should be tackled. We need to promote objectivity across communities by means of: [a] the teaching and application of collaborative learning in all organisations, so that people working together can discover and appreciate how reliable claims are established through mutual testing and revision; [b] the establishment of systems for critical reviews with trained investigators and evaluators to oversee their operation, so that claims invalidated by new findings can be identified and put aside, while hitherto unaccepted claims can be reassessed as dependable if new evidence or conceptualisation warrants such a change; and [c] the support for responsible communication through the dissemination of up to date information, and the necessary regulation and enforcement to prevent false and deceptive communication that subverts ‘freedom of speech’ into a shield for vicious lies and egregious manipulation.
--
To be continued in ‘The General Theory of Responsibility: (part 3)’: https://henry-tam.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-general-theory-of-responsibility_21.html.
For ‘The General Theory of Responsibility (part 1)’, go to: https://henry-tam.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-general-theory-of-responsibility.html
For an overview of the theory and a guide to further reading, go to: https://hbtam.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-general-theory-of-responsibility.html
Cooperative Enquiry: our reasoning with each other
Human knowledge has been advanced through cooperative enquiry, exemplified by the empirical exchange and examination of information in scientific research, legal due process, and impartial public inquiry. It would clearly be self-defeating if all sides were to throw in groundless declarations or incoherent assertions. Cooperative enquiry requires logical and testable information to be brought together and scrutinised openly to see what stands up best at any given time and thus warrants assent. To act responsibly, we need to ascertain the veracity of conflicting claims, which involves being ready to give defensible reasons, listen and respond, and revise views in the light of verifiable evidence; and this approach requires all sides to engage in a mutually receptive mode of reasoning.
The Problem of Ignorance
Misunderstanding, confusion, deception, lack of information can mean that what people do may have very different effects from what they anticipate. Although it is often said that ignorance is no defence, that is only relevant where there is a clear obligation for people to find out about the implications of certain behaviour before they engage in it (for example, people cannot shrug off responsibility by deliberately not checking if certain activities would break the law when they know they should check; nor can responsibility for any harm resulting from drunken behaviour be bypassed when it is common knowledge how excessive alcohol consumption can lead to injurious actions). In all other situations where ignorance of the relevant facts cannot be avoided or foreseen, responsibility would be nullified. However, efforts to improve our knowledge and understanding will encounter obstacles from, for example, philosophical sceptics/relativists who deny there is any basis for distinguishing truth from falsehood; those who are overwhelmed by irrationality as a result of psychological or physiological damages; or fanatic followers of cults or dogmas who recoil from objective examination of their beliefs.
Cognitive Thoughtfulness
Ignorance can be reduced through the cultivation of cognitive thoughtfulness on two levels. For people who are open to learning, we should ensure education for all ages enhance their understanding of and skills in assessing rival claims and settling disagreement. They should be familiarised with how assertions, from ones about everyday occurrence to those putting forward complex theories, are subject to exchange of observation, evidence and arguments so that they can be accepted provisionally, revised or rejected. Supplementing direct enquiry would be indirect evaluation of claims made by a given authority or expert, based on the latter’s track record in complying with cooperative enquiry. For those whose minds seem closed to cooperative enquiry, we should connect their ‘unquestionable’ assumptions to experiences of events that may lead them to think again. By enabling them to live through what their dogmas or prejudices insist could not possibly happen, they could be brought round to re-examining what they think they ‘know’. Another effective technique is to link their deepest interests to trying out what would in practice achieve them – for example, discovering how science-based medication rather than superstitious rituals help their loved ones recover from serious sickness.
Objectivity as a Socio-Political Goal
Aside from minimising ignorance amongst individuals, there are many societal obstacles to cooperative enquiry that should be tackled. We need to promote objectivity across communities by means of: [a] the teaching and application of collaborative learning in all organisations, so that people working together can discover and appreciate how reliable claims are established through mutual testing and revision; [b] the establishment of systems for critical reviews with trained investigators and evaluators to oversee their operation, so that claims invalidated by new findings can be identified and put aside, while hitherto unaccepted claims can be reassessed as dependable if new evidence or conceptualisation warrants such a change; and [c] the support for responsible communication through the dissemination of up to date information, and the necessary regulation and enforcement to prevent false and deceptive communication that subverts ‘freedom of speech’ into a shield for vicious lies and egregious manipulation.
--
To be continued in ‘The General Theory of Responsibility: (part 3)’: https://henry-tam.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-general-theory-of-responsibility_21.html.
For ‘The General Theory of Responsibility (part 1)’, go to: https://henry-tam.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-general-theory-of-responsibility.html
For an overview of the theory and a guide to further reading, go to: https://hbtam.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-general-theory-of-responsibility.html
Friday, 1 May 2020
The General Theory of Responsibility (part 1)
Why should people take responsibility for how they affect the lives of others? What is the basis for differentiating responsible behaviour from irresponsible ones? And how can society help its members act more responsibly?
According to the general theory of responsibility, these questions can be answered with reference to three interrelated sets of issues:
• Our concern for each other
• Our reasoning with each other
• Our decision-making involving each other
Through looking at these issues and their implications, we will get an overall picture of how responsibility connects in a way that is crucial to advancing our wellbeing. We will begin with the first of these in this essay (and in parts 2 and 3 we will look at the other two sets of issues).
Mutual Responsibility: our concern for each other
Responsibility matters because of our concern for each other. This is not about pure altruism, or about instrumentalist help for others to secure gains for oneself, but essentially about reciprocity – in caring about the wellbeing of others as we would want others to care about our wellbeing. It is embodied in the Golden Rule which, over the course of history, has been found to run through the emergence of the earliest civilisations down to diverse contemporary social structures. It endorses our treatment of others as we would have others treat us, and castigate attitudes and actions that go against this. Mutual responsibility – the recognition that we need to account for how our behaviour may support or hinder each other – is an unmistakable social reality that is at the heart of human existence. People who would pay no heed to how their behaviour might impact on others, could expect others to treat them with similar disregard.
The Problem of Indifference
As concern for others is the foundation of responsibility, its absence leaves us with the first key obstacle to responsible behaviour - indifference. Some people may not feel any concern for others because of their unfortunate upbringing, acquired prejudice, psychological trauma, or some form of pathology. There are also people who reject concern for others on different grounds: for example, philosophical egoists who refuse to accept that we can ever genuinely care about the wellbeing of others; free-riders/exploiters who without hesitation neglect the wellbeing of others when they seek to take advantage of them for their own benefit; or adherents to some extremist doctrine that celebrates apathy or even disdain towards the suffering of others, and leads them to care nothing about how their actions may impact on others. If we allow indifference to persist as a result of any of these factors, we would end up with more people perceiving others as beings whose feelings count for nothing, and hence lack any sense that they should take responsibility for how their behaviour may affect others.
Empathic Thoughtfulness
We cannot solve the problem of indifference by invoking some ‘absolute’ justification for our position. Our sense of mutual responsibility comes from our interpersonal connections with other people. To avoid such connections becoming deficient, we should cultivate empathic thoughtfulness by means of education, social support, and where necessary, rehabilitation. We know from developmental psychology that empathy and a propensity towards mutual concern grow from infancy under normal caring conditions. There are techniques for strengthening these sensibilities, and methods to restore them if they have been depleted. They can enable people to appreciate how others could be/have been hurt by their actions, and reflect on what changes they would want to make in the future. There is no guarantee they would always work, and in cases where we are dealing with those whose irresponsible acts cause harm or pose a dangerous threat to others, then proportionate forms of punitive as well as restorative response may also be required to remind transgressors of the implications of not taking others’ wellbeing into consideration in their behaviour.
Togetherness as a Socio-Political Goal
Beyond dealing with individual cases, there are society-wide challenges to counter the neglect of mutual responsibility. We need to promote togetherness across communities by means of: [a] the development of shared missions, so that people can recognise and appreciate the threats and opportunities they can handle much more effectively by working collaboratively, and learn about practical ways to help achieve common goals; [b] the championing of mutual respect, through formal protection of everyone’s entitlement to dignified treatment, systemic countering of prejudice, and impartial adjudication of complaints against discriminatory acts; and [c] the provision of coherent membership that explains why people are admitted as members, what mutual commitment is entailed by being a member, and the transparent basis on which membership terms may be revoked or restored.
--
To be continued in ‘The General Theory of Responsibility: (part 2)’: https://henry-tam.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-general-theory-of-responsibility_11.html
For an overview of the theory and a guide to further reading, go to: https://hbtam.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-general-theory-of-responsibility.html
According to the general theory of responsibility, these questions can be answered with reference to three interrelated sets of issues:
• Our concern for each other
• Our reasoning with each other
• Our decision-making involving each other
Through looking at these issues and their implications, we will get an overall picture of how responsibility connects in a way that is crucial to advancing our wellbeing. We will begin with the first of these in this essay (and in parts 2 and 3 we will look at the other two sets of issues).
Mutual Responsibility: our concern for each other
Responsibility matters because of our concern for each other. This is not about pure altruism, or about instrumentalist help for others to secure gains for oneself, but essentially about reciprocity – in caring about the wellbeing of others as we would want others to care about our wellbeing. It is embodied in the Golden Rule which, over the course of history, has been found to run through the emergence of the earliest civilisations down to diverse contemporary social structures. It endorses our treatment of others as we would have others treat us, and castigate attitudes and actions that go against this. Mutual responsibility – the recognition that we need to account for how our behaviour may support or hinder each other – is an unmistakable social reality that is at the heart of human existence. People who would pay no heed to how their behaviour might impact on others, could expect others to treat them with similar disregard.
The Problem of Indifference
As concern for others is the foundation of responsibility, its absence leaves us with the first key obstacle to responsible behaviour - indifference. Some people may not feel any concern for others because of their unfortunate upbringing, acquired prejudice, psychological trauma, or some form of pathology. There are also people who reject concern for others on different grounds: for example, philosophical egoists who refuse to accept that we can ever genuinely care about the wellbeing of others; free-riders/exploiters who without hesitation neglect the wellbeing of others when they seek to take advantage of them for their own benefit; or adherents to some extremist doctrine that celebrates apathy or even disdain towards the suffering of others, and leads them to care nothing about how their actions may impact on others. If we allow indifference to persist as a result of any of these factors, we would end up with more people perceiving others as beings whose feelings count for nothing, and hence lack any sense that they should take responsibility for how their behaviour may affect others.
Empathic Thoughtfulness
We cannot solve the problem of indifference by invoking some ‘absolute’ justification for our position. Our sense of mutual responsibility comes from our interpersonal connections with other people. To avoid such connections becoming deficient, we should cultivate empathic thoughtfulness by means of education, social support, and where necessary, rehabilitation. We know from developmental psychology that empathy and a propensity towards mutual concern grow from infancy under normal caring conditions. There are techniques for strengthening these sensibilities, and methods to restore them if they have been depleted. They can enable people to appreciate how others could be/have been hurt by their actions, and reflect on what changes they would want to make in the future. There is no guarantee they would always work, and in cases where we are dealing with those whose irresponsible acts cause harm or pose a dangerous threat to others, then proportionate forms of punitive as well as restorative response may also be required to remind transgressors of the implications of not taking others’ wellbeing into consideration in their behaviour.
Togetherness as a Socio-Political Goal
Beyond dealing with individual cases, there are society-wide challenges to counter the neglect of mutual responsibility. We need to promote togetherness across communities by means of: [a] the development of shared missions, so that people can recognise and appreciate the threats and opportunities they can handle much more effectively by working collaboratively, and learn about practical ways to help achieve common goals; [b] the championing of mutual respect, through formal protection of everyone’s entitlement to dignified treatment, systemic countering of prejudice, and impartial adjudication of complaints against discriminatory acts; and [c] the provision of coherent membership that explains why people are admitted as members, what mutual commitment is entailed by being a member, and the transparent basis on which membership terms may be revoked or restored.
--
To be continued in ‘The General Theory of Responsibility: (part 2)’: https://henry-tam.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-general-theory-of-responsibility_11.html
For an overview of the theory and a guide to further reading, go to: https://hbtam.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-general-theory-of-responsibility.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)